On 30 Dec 2003 18:12:24 -0800, (Purple) wrote:

>In my consumer habits I currently follow simple principles like
>not buying produce from intensive animal farming, or companies
>that continue to support animal testing, prefering local/organic,
>etc. I would like to develop a more sophisticated approach
>towards applying the "least harm principle" and would be grateful
>for any information and/or pointers towards fruitful areas of
>research. Factors I would like to consider a
>
>The amount of death and suffering caused - I am primarily concerned
>about birds and mammals but don't entirely reject the needs of fish,
>reptiles or even insects.
>
>The ecological opportunity cost - By this I mean the benefits the land
>may have if it wasn't used for farming. For example the Amazon, where
>many Soy beans are grown, supports an enormous density of life.
>
>Predator prey relationships - The food chain is a good way of preventing
>animal populations getting out of control and suffering mass starvations.
>I see no reason why humans shouldn't be part of this.
>
>Vegetables grown to feed livestock - What diets do various livestock
>have, how much must be grown to feed them, etc.
>
>Other considerations - I'm interested in utilitarian considerations,
>not abstract philosophical arguments like "farming is slavery".

One of the basic facts that veg*ns don't want people to consider,
is the fact that some types of animal products involve fewer animal
deaths than some types of veggies. People can get over 500 servings
of beef from the life of a grass raised steer--a few servings of tofu are
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings of grass
raised beef. People can get over 1000 servings of dairy products from
the life of a grass raised dairy cow--a few servings of rice milk are likely
to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings of grass raised
cow milk.
People who want to contribute to better lives for farm animals with their
diet, can't do it by being veg*n. They would have to be more conscientious
consumers of animal products, like you. It's interesting/sad/funny/disgusting
that "ethical" veg*ns don't point such facts out to people who are considering
becoming veg*n for ethical reasons, and it's even worse that they often
oppose seeing other people point out such facts.

How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include your source, I'm
curious.

Allyb

>
> One of the basic facts that veg*ns don't want people to consider,
> is the fact that some types of animal products involve fewer animal
> deaths than some types of veggies. People can get over 500 servings
> of beef from the life of a grass raised steer--a few servings of tofu are
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings of grass
> raised beef. People can get over 1000 servings of dairy products from
> the life of a grass raised dairy cow--a few servings of rice milk are
likely
> to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings of grass raised
> cow milk.
> People who want to contribute to better lives for farm animals with
their
> diet, can't do it by being veg*n. They would have to be more conscientious
> consumers of animal products, like you. It's
interesting/sad/funny/disgusting
> that "ethical" veg*ns don't point such facts out to people who are
considering
> becoming veg*n for ethical reasons, and it's even worse that they often
> oppose seeing other people point out such facts.

"Allyb" > wrote in message
...
> How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include your source, I'm
> curious.
>
> Allyb

There's a group of people in here who focus on collateral damage of farming,
and say that's just as bad (or worse) for animals as meat eating.

They're referring to the mice and birds and other animals in the crop fields
that are harmed by chemicals and harvesting machines, etc.

I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but they claim that a
serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs) than one serving
of beef that came from one cow.

-Rubystars

> I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but they claim that
a
> serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs) than one
serving
> of beef that came from one cow.

*** That makes perfect sence to me. A deer that my husband shoots or one of
our grass fed steers can provide many, many servings with the death of only
one animal. Harvest an acre of soybeans and you are going to kill many more
than that.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

What do they say they're feeding the cows? They kept repeating grass
raised, are there enough of those to satisfy the demands of meat and dairy
hungry americans? It'd take an awful lot of grass for that. Sounds
illogical. Hmmm, I'd like to look at the research if someone would post
some references. I would hate to be accused of being closed minded.


"Rubystars" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Allyb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include your source,
I'm
> > curious.
> >
> > Allyb
>
> There's a group of people in here who focus on collateral damage of
farming,
> and say that's just as bad (or worse) for animals as meat eating.
>
> They're referring to the mice and birds and other animals in the crop
fields
> that are harmed by chemicals and harvesting machines, etc.
>
> I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but they claim that
a
> serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs) than one
serving
> of beef that came from one cow.
>
> -Rubystars
>
>

Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals on
grass. Therefore enormous farms must harvest many times the produce to feed
cattle than would be needed to feed humans directly. The cow dies, all the
little animals in the field (times x) die. I am not a militant vegan, I'm
not arguing for the sake of it, I'm not even arguing ethics, just straight
numbers.

"Russ Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> > I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but they claim
that
> a
> > serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs) than one
> serving
> > of beef that came from one cow.
>
> *** That makes perfect sence to me. A deer that my husband shoots or one
of
> our grass fed steers can provide many, many servings with the death of
only
> one animal. Harvest an acre of soybeans and you are going to kill many
more
> than that.
>
> Kala Thompson
> Farmer
> Richland Center, Wi USA
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Allyb" > wrote in message
...
> Karla, the flaw
====================
No, the flaw is yours. the 'need' isn't for everyone to be fed the most
'ethical' way, just those loons that claim that they live their lives and
alter *their* diet for the sake of animals. they don't do that of course,
but that's still their claim.

I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
> meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals
on
> grass.
====================
Virtually all cows are raised on grass now. they spend only a small portion
of their lives in feedlots. It would be far easier to feed everyone with
grass fed meats, than any kind of crop production that you determine to be
cruelty-free.


Therefore enormous farms must harvest many times the produce to feed
> cattle than would be needed to feed humans directly.
================================
No stupid, there is no *need* to feed crops to cattle. That's just part of
the vegan religious myths and delusions. But I see you fail, like most
vegans, to place any blame on all the massive crops raised for your selfish
convenience. Why is that?

The cow dies, all the
> little animals in the field (times x) die. I am not a militant vegan, I'm
> not arguing for the sake of it, I'm not even arguing ethics, just straight
> numbers.
==================
Then you lose. Because *you* could make better choices. We aren't talking
about what others choose, just those that claim they 'care'. It's obvious
that you don't, your posting to usenet proves that. But, you could reduce
your bloody footprints with specific kinds of meats. You won't thogh
because you follow only a simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat'.


>
> "Russ Thompson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but they claim
> that
> > a
> > > serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs) than one
> > serving
> > > of beef that came from one cow.
> >
> > *** That makes perfect sence to me. A deer that my husband shoots or one
> of
> > our grass fed steers can provide many, many servings with the death of
> only
> > one animal. Harvest an acre of soybeans and you are going to kill many
> more
> > than that.





Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd
f




Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/


To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

"Allyb" > wrote in message
...
> What do they say they're feeding the cows? They kept repeating grass
> raised, are there enough of those to satisfy the demands of meat and dairy
> hungry americans?
=======================
Yes. far easier than growing all the cheap, convenient veggies you demand
in a cruelty-free fashion. Why is it you never seem to mention all the
death and suffering that you crop production causes? Just like to focus on
what you think others are doing? It does make it easier to forget about
and/or accept all the animals that die for your convenience and are just
left to rot, eh killer?


It'd take an awful lot of grass for that. Sounds
> illogical.
==========================
Yes, you do. You do realize that virtually all cattle are already raised on
grass. they just spend a small portion of their lives in feedlots. Or are
you one of the delusion vegan kooks that believe that they are all fed crops
their whole lives?


Hmmm, I'd like to look at the research if someone would post
> some references. I would hate to be accused of being closed minded.
==================
Too late....


>
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Allyb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include your source,
> I'm
> > > curious.
> > >
> > > Allyb
> >
> > There's a group of people in here who focus on collateral damage of
> farming,
> > and say that's just as bad (or worse) for animals as meat eating.
> >
> > They're referring to the mice and birds and other animals in the crop
> fields
> > that are harmed by chemicals and harvesting machines, etc.
> >
> > I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but they claim
that
> a
> > serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs) than one
> serving
> > of beef that came from one cow.
> >
> > -Rubystars
> >
> >
>
>

"Allyb" > wrote in message
...
> How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include your source, I'm
> curious.
====================
You need sources to know that animals die in food production? What planet
have you been living on?
Call monsanto/dow, whoever and just ask them how much pesticde is used every
year to deliberately kill animals at storage/processing facilities.
Go ahead. Do you dare? How many animals do you figure died for a grass fed
cow, or game animal? They provide 100s of 1000s of calories from that one
death. How many deaths do you figure go into the same amount of veggies?
10s? 100s? 1000s? More?

Here is a site about *just* birds and just from *pesticides*
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm

That doesn't include the mammals, reptiles, fish, and amphibians that die
incidentally and deliberately for your cheap, conveninet veggies from any
number of other ways..



>
> Allyb
>
> >
> > One of the basic facts that veg*ns don't want people to consider,
> > is the fact that some types of animal products involve fewer animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies. People can get over 500 servings
> > of beef from the life of a grass raised steer--a few servings of tofu
are
> > likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings of grass
> > raised beef. People can get over 1000 servings of dairy products from
> > the life of a grass raised dairy cow--a few servings of rice milk are
> likely
> > to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings of grass raised
> > cow milk.
> > People who want to contribute to better lives for farm animals with
> their
> > diet, can't do it by being veg*n. They would have to be more
conscientious
> > consumers of animal products, like you. It's
> interesting/sad/funny/disgusting
> > that "ethical" veg*ns don't point such facts out to people who are
> considering
> > becoming veg*n for ethical reasons, and it's even worse that they often
> > oppose seeing other people point out such facts.
>
>

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Allyb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include
your source, I'm
> > curious.
> >
> > Allyb
>
> There's a group of people in here who focus on collateral
damage of farming,
> and say that's just as bad (or worse) for animals as meat
eating.
>
> They're referring to the mice and birds and other animals in
the crop fields
> that are harmed by chemicals and harvesting machines, etc.
>
> I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but
they claim that a
> serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs)
than one serving
> of beef that came from one cow.
>
> -Rubystars

Where I live, grass feeding requires tons of hay during winter
months at least. There may be places where cattle can survive
by grazing the range year around, but I'm not familiar with
them. I've never done a count, but I've mowed enough hay to
know that ground nesting birds, rabbits, and reptiles are
sometimes killed in the process. (The same is true for mowing
the yard, by the way. Perhaps someone should question the
morality of that.) It seems to me that people have to accept
the fact that our lives depend on the deaths of at least some
other living things no matter what our diets consist of.
Religions have made food a moral issue for thousands of years,
of course, but attempts to do so on logical grounds don't hold
up very well when examined closely.

Marvin Doolin

Marvin > writes

>It seems to me that people have to accept
>the fact that our lives depend on the deaths of at least some
>other living things no matter what our diets consist of.

That seems to be the case for all natural things.
In order to survive you must take limited resources that would otherwise
be used by another organism. Darwin had a word for it.

Man being no exception.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:08:17 GMT, "Marvin" > wrote:

>
>"Rubystars" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> "Allyb" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include
>your source, I'm
>> > curious.
>> >
>> > Allyb
>>
>> There's a group of people in here who focus on collateral
>damage of farming,
>> and say that's just as bad (or worse) for animals as meat
>eating.
>>
>> They're referring to the mice and birds and other animals in
>the crop fields
>> that are harmed by chemicals and harvesting machines, etc.
>>
>> I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but
>they claim that a
>> serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs)
>than one serving
>> of beef that came from one cow.
>>
>> -Rubystars
>
>Where I live, grass feeding requires tons of hay during winter
>months at least. There may be places where cattle can survive
>by grazing the range year around, but I'm not familiar with
>them. I've never done a count, but I've mowed enough hay to
>know that ground nesting birds, rabbits, and reptiles are
>sometimes killed in the process.

If you compare what it takes to produce hay and what it
takes to produce soy beans, which do you think would
involve the deaths of more animals? How about if you
compare what it takes to produce hay and what it takes
to produce rice?

>(The same is true for mowing
>the yard, by the way. Perhaps someone should question the
>morality of that.) It seems to me that people have to accept
>the fact that our lives depend on the deaths of at least some
>other living things no matter what our diets consist of.
>Religions have made food a moral issue for thousands of years,
>of course, but attempts to do so on logical grounds don't hold
>up very well when examined closely.
>
>Marvin Doolin
>

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:

>Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
>meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals on
>grass.

That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are aware of.
What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal deaths
than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more deaths
than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow milk...
are you unable to understand why?)
But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that this
country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is what
"ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other things
that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There's no reason to believe we could feed everyone if people didn't make
use of animal products.

>Therefore enormous farms must harvest many times the produce to feed
>cattle than would be needed to feed humans directly. The cow dies, all the
>little animals in the field (times x) die. I am not a militant vegan, I'm
>not arguing for the sake of it, I'm not even arguing ethics, just straight
>numbers.

No, what you are doing is changing the subject in an attempt to support
veg*nism. If you cared about straight numbers, you would recognise that
some types of meat involve less animal deaths than some types of veggies.
It's pathetic imo that as yet I have **never** seen a veg*n accept that simple
fact. Not one! This shows that veg*ns--every single one of them?--care more
about promoting veg*nism than they do about human influence on animals.

Wow, I am absolutely shocked by the vitriol in some of those responses. I
said what the research I have read so far has lead me to believe and asked
for more information. It is not my full time job to research these issues,
so at the age of 35 I admit that I definitely don't know all the facts. I
am constantly looking for information, and unlike some people, I don't only
look for info that supports what I believe. Calling me stupid, closed
minded and fanatical will not stop me from continuing to try to find what I
think is the best moral place to be, but it might cause some people to react
defensively and not even consider your facts. You might want to reconsider
your tactics. Thank you for all the information you provided, I will look
at, and consider it all.

OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it is
information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so many
millions of people have on the planet. I would like to know (I really
would, so please don't fly off the handle) what you do with respect to these
issues? Do you buy only organic, that kind of thing? Or do you just throw
up your hands and say, "There's nothing to be done"? Frankly, that's what I
feel like doing sometimes.

****wit David Harrison wrote:


> But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that this
> country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is what
> "ARAs" want.

That's patently false. You don't know what you're
talking about, at all. OF COURSE "this country" could
be fed without raising any farm animals. That isn't
the point.

Allyb wrote:

> OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it is
> information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so many
> millions of people have on the planet. I would like to know (I really
> would, so please don't fly off the handle) what you do with respect to these
> issues? Do you buy only organic, that kind of thing? Or do you just throw
> up your hands and say, "There's nothing to be done"? Frankly, that's what I
> feel like doing sometimes.

What you do is figure out how to do the ethically right
thing, then do it and keep your mouth shut about it.
You don't worry if your one little action, which
obviously has only symbolic value when there are over 6
billion other people in the world, is going to save the
world or not. If it's the right thing to do, you just
do it, and content yourself with the knowledge you're
doing the right thing.

The main thing is, stop your public agonizing and
handwringing. It's disgusting.

"Allyb" > wrote in message
...
> Wow, I am absolutely shocked by the vitriol in some of those responses.

Here, I'll restore the snipping you did for the post you replied to, show me
the vitriol you were shocked by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
====================
You need sources to know that animals die in food production? What planet
have you been living on?
Call monsanto/dow, whoever and just ask them how much pesticde is used every
year to deliberately kill animals at storage/processing facilities.
Go ahead. Do you dare? How many animals do you figure died for a grass fed
cow, or game animal? They provide 100s of 1000s of calories from that one
death. How many deaths do you figure go into the same amount of veggies?
10s? 100s? 1000s? More?

Here is a site about *just* birds and just from *pesticides*
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm

That doesn't include the mammals, reptiles, fish, and amphibians that die
incidentally and deliberately for your cheap, conveninet veggies from any
number of other ways..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



I
> said what the research I have read so far has lead me to believe and asked
> for more information.
=======================
What research and info? Nothing factual, apparently.


It is not my full time job to research these issues,
======================
Really? What then would be the job of a vegan when they claim that their
diet/lifestyle causes no/less/fewer animal death s and suffering? Seems to
me that that would precisely be your 'job'. That is, if caring for animals
is truely your goal. Of course, that's proven not to be the case as long as
you continue your posts to usenet.


> so at the age of 35 I admit that I definitely don't know all the facts. I
> am constantly looking for information, and unlike some people, I don't
only
> look for info that supports what I believe. Calling me stupid, closed
> minded and fanatical will not stop me from continuing to try to find what
I
> think is the best moral place to be, but it might cause some people to
react
> defensively and not even consider your facts.
=======================
You won't anyway. You've declared yourself vegan. You live only by a
simple rule, eat no meat. You have done *no* research into your own foods.
Which veggies cause more death and suffering, which ones cause less. vegans
won't do that because the have the easy out, focus only on what they think
others are doing.
It's not too hard to see, for an open mind, that a diet that eliminates some
of the factory-farmed veggies, and replaces it with grass fed beef, or game,
would be a better so-called 'moral' choice, if the death and suffering of as
few animals as possible is really your goal.



You might want to reconsider
> your tactics. Thank you for all the information you provided, I will look
> at, and consider it all.
=====================
So I'm brusk. So what. If liars, delusional loons and idiots can't take
the truth, then maybe they should stick to their religion of hate, veganism.


>
>

Rubystars wrote:

> "Allyb" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include your source, I'm
>>curious.
>>
>>Allyb
>
>
> There's a group of people in here who focus on collateral damage of farming,
> and say that's just as bad (or worse) for animals as meat eating.

That is INCORRECT. The people who point out collateral
deaths of animals from farming are not making a
comparison ("just as bad"). What they are doing is
illustrating THE fundamental unpleasant truth for
"vegans": following the silly dietary rule of "do not
consume animal parts" does NOT ensure that you aren't
harming animals; animals still die in the course of
producing fruits and vegetables.

>
> They're referring to the mice and birds and other animals in the crop fields
> that are harmed by chemicals and harvesting machines, etc.
>
> I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly,

I don't. It isn't necessary. In order to demolish the
bogus claim of "vegans", it is only necessary to point
out that the deaths occur. It doesn't matter if a
strictly vegetarian diet kills more, fewer, or the same
number of animals; what matters is that the number is
not zero, and never will be.

> but they claim that a
> serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs) than one serving
> of beef that came from one cow.

It could, but it's irrelevant.

"Allyb" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it is
> information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so many
> millions of people have on the planet.
=================================
Ah, there it is! I knew you'd get around to your hatred of people sooner or
later. Nice to see you vegans are still so predictable.



I would like to know (I really
> would, so please don't fly off the handle) what you do with respect to
these
> issues?
===============
Most normal, sane people just live their lives. They know that their life
has an impact on other animals that they cannot control. It's just the
sanctimonious hand-wringing crowd of vegan loons can't seem to understand
that.



Do you buy only organic, that kind of thing? Or do you just throw
> up your hands and say, "There's nothing to be done"? Frankly, that's what
I
> feel like doing sometimes.
=====================
Why? Your ethics or morals are just yours. Why do you think everyone
should abide by only what you think? If they were really what you cared
about, it wouldn't matter what the 'masses' are doing, as long as you knew
you were doing what you feel is right. Apparently you don't, because you're
too worried about what others might or might no be doing.


>
>

Allyb wrote:

> Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
> meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals on
> grass.

That is NOT a flaw. We aren't talking about satisfying
the entire demand for meat and dairy; we're talking
about the action(s) YOU undertake for some claimed
ethical reason.

You believe or believed that by not consuming any
animal products, you were not causing *any* animal
suffering. That belief is false. Even when you
believed it true, however, it still was obvious that
animal suffering was going on, caused by others. You
didn't expect your dietary choice to eliminate *all*
animal suffering.

Now, you need to confront the fact that it is possible,
even likely, that YOU, personally, could follow a diet
containing animal products that causes LESS animal
suffering than the strictly vegetarian diet you are
following right now. It doesn't matter if everyone can
do it or not; right now, today, YOU CAN DO IT.

> Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
> meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals
on
> grass.

*** Well you are right that with the current economic and regulatory
situation in the USA it would not be possible. If you look at it from an
acres needed point of view it could be done no problem. We can raise a grass
finished steer on slightly less than 3 acres. That includes the 1/3 acre of
hay that will have to be harvested for the steer for winter feeding. A grain
finished steer would require 4 acres. Basicly the saem 3 grazing acres plus
another acre of grain. However with current USDA rugulations and subsidies
it can't happen.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

wrote in message >. ..
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
>
> >Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
> >meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals on
> >grass.
>
> That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are aware of.
> What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
> grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal deaths
> than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more deaths
> than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow milk...
> are you unable to understand why?)
> But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that this
> country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is what
> "ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other things
> that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:

[snip extensive list of products]

There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you list.

OK, I won't snip anything out now. I never said I was a vegan. I said I
wasn't a militant vegan, but I'm actually not any kind of vegan, I'm a
vegetarian, and I was just perusing this group and saw something I'd like to
ask a question about. I probably should have made this clear since this is
a vegan newsgroup, but you made an awful lot of assumptions about me from my
post, which originally was what did the poster mean by tofu kills animals?
I'm not trying to make everybody act the same way, I'm just using this
newsgroup as a sounding board to challenge the decisions I've made. I think
debate forces you to really think about your own decisions, and if they have
any real validity. I'm not going to sit in an ivory tower and never listen
to what other people think, because I want to grow, and part of growth is
accepting facts and changing. Oh, I also don't hate people. Why would you
think I hate people just because I think population pressure is changing the
world in a way that is not to my particular liking.

> So I'm brusk. So what. If liars, delusional loons and idiots can't take
> the truth, then maybe they should stick to their religion of hate,
veganism.

You know, I don't even know a single hard core vegan. If that's what
they're like Rick, I hope I never do.



"rick etter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Allyb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wow, I am absolutely shocked by the vitriol in some of those responses.
>
> Here, I'll restore the snipping you did for the post you replied to, show
me
> the vitriol you were shocked by:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> ====================
> You need sources to know that animals die in food production? What planet
> have you been living on?
> Call monsanto/dow, whoever and just ask them how much pesticde is used
every
> year to deliberately kill animals at storage/processing facilities.
> Go ahead. Do you dare? How many animals do you figure died for a grass
fed
> cow, or game animal? They provide 100s of 1000s of calories from that one
> death. How many deaths do you figure go into the same amount of veggies?
> 10s? 100s? 1000s? More?
>
> Here is a site about *just* birds and just from *pesticides*
> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
>
> That doesn't include the mammals, reptiles, fish, and amphibians that die
> incidentally and deliberately for your cheap, conveninet veggies from any
> number of other ways..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
> I
> > said what the research I have read so far has lead me to believe and
asked
> > for more information.
> =======================
> What research and info? Nothing factual, apparently.
>
>
> It is not my full time job to research these issues,
> ======================
> Really? What then would be the job of a vegan when they claim that their
> diet/lifestyle causes no/less/fewer animal death s and suffering? Seems
to
> me that that would precisely be your 'job'. That is, if caring for
animals
> is truely your goal. Of course, that's proven not to be the case as long
as
> you continue your posts to usenet.
>
>
> > so at the age of 35 I admit that I definitely don't know all the facts.
I
> > am constantly looking for information, and unlike some people, I don't
> only
> > look for info that supports what I believe. Calling me stupid, closed
> > minded and fanatical will not stop me from continuing to try to find
what
> I
> > think is the best moral place to be, but it might cause some people to
> react
> > defensively and not even consider your facts.
> =======================
> You won't anyway. You've declared yourself vegan. You live only by a
> simple rule, eat no meat. You have done *no* research into your own
foods.
> Which veggies cause more death and suffering, which ones cause less.
vegans
> won't do that because the have the easy out, focus only on what they think
> others are doing.
> It's not too hard to see, for an open mind, that a diet that eliminates
some
> of the factory-farmed veggies, and replaces it with grass fed beef, or
game,
> would be a better so-called 'moral' choice, if the death and suffering of
as
> few animals as possible is really your goal.
>
>
>
> You might want to reconsider
> > your tactics. Thank you for all the information you provided, I will
look
> > at, and consider it all.
> =====================
> So I'm brusk. So what. If liars, delusional loons and idiots can't take
> the truth, then maybe they should stick to their religion of hate,
veganism.
>
>
> >
> >
>
>

Karla, thank you for that thoughtful and informative reply. Everyone else
seems to be jumping down my throat. I actually grew up on a farm where we
raised grass fed cattle for our own comsumption, and I probabaly would have
never become a strict vegetarian (not a vegan) if I thought all animals in
the US were treated as well as ours were. I'm glad you didn't jump to the
conclusions that the others who answered my post did.

"Russ Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> > Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand
for
> > meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough
animals
> on
> > grass.
>
> *** Well you are right that with the current economic and regulatory
> situation in the USA it would not be possible. If you look at it from an
> acres needed point of view it could be done no problem. We can raise a
grass
> finished steer on slightly less than 3 acres. That includes the 1/3 acre
of
> hay that will have to be harvested for the steer for winter feeding. A
grain
> finished steer would require 4 acres. Basicly the saem 3 grazing acres
plus
> another acre of grain. However with current USDA rugulations and subsidies
> it can't happen.
>
> Kala Thompson
> Farmer
> Richland Center, Wi USA
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Allyb of OWDS Inc. said:

>You know, I don't even know a single hard core vegan. If that's what
>they're like Rick, I hope I never do.
>
Rich is a known troll. He doesn't do anything but repeating his point
about collateral deaths, as if we didn't know about them.

He also changed the subject when you asked him about the possibility
of enough grass fed cows (of the ones who go outdoor all year, or that
will also cause some collateral deaths, when he claims that grass fed
beef only causes the death of the cow, itself) to feed all of
USAmerica.

It's not very good as an alternative, if it's not something which
sustainably can feed all people, now is it? No, it means that it's
something which we can't all switch to. So, he can't defend the
alternative he sets up as a better way than veganism, and if you ask
him to he'll just continue to go on about collateral deaths. Much
easier for him than having to defend his idea of meat from grass fed
cattle.

My advice is to not waste time on the trolls, and ask what you came
here to ask: there's plenty of people in here who are not like them at
all.

However, it's all up to you. I'm just adding my opinion here, as I'm
not normally spending time on them.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably
overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain)

Thanks MEow, I'm new to this newsgroup thing, and he got my goat. I did
notice that he didn't provide any data about the grass fed cattle. I was
not under the impression that most commercially raised cattle were raised on
grass, but were fed agriculturally produced vegetable matter due to limited
grazing space.

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Allyb of OWDS Inc. said:
>
> >You know, I don't even know a single hard core vegan. If that's what
> >they're like Rick, I hope I never do.
> >
> Rich is a known troll. He doesn't do anything but repeating his point
> about collateral deaths, as if we didn't know about them.
>
> He also changed the subject when you asked him about the possibility
> of enough grass fed cows (of the ones who go outdoor all year, or that
> will also cause some collateral deaths, when he claims that grass fed
> beef only causes the death of the cow, itself) to feed all of
> USAmerica.
>
> It's not very good as an alternative, if it's not something which
> sustainably can feed all people, now is it? No, it means that it's
> something which we can't all switch to. So, he can't defend the
> alternative he sets up as a better way than veganism, and if you ask
> him to he'll just continue to go on about collateral deaths. Much
> easier for him than having to defend his idea of meat from grass fed
> cattle.
>
> My advice is to not waste time on the trolls, and ask what you came
> here to ask: there's plenty of people in here who are not like them at
> all.
>
> However, it's all up to you. I'm just adding my opinion here, as I'm
> not normally spending time on them.
> --
> Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
> ICQ# 251532856
> Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
> "True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably
> overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain)

"Russ Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> > Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy
the demand for
> > meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise
enough animals
> on
> > grass.
>
> *** Well you are right that with the current economic and
regulatory
> situation in the USA it would not be possible. If you look
at it from an
> acres needed point of view it could be done no problem. We
can raise a grass
> finished steer on slightly less than 3 acres. That includes
the 1/3 acre of
> hay that will have to be harvested for the steer for winter
feeding. A grain
> finished steer would require 4 acres. Basicly the saem 3
grazing acres plus
> another acre of grain. However with current USDA rugulations
and subsidies
> it can't happen.
>
> Kala Thompson
> Farmer
> Richland Center, Wi USA

Would it really take an acre's worth of grain to "finish"?
I've never raised cattle, but I'm aware they can put away
quite a lot of feed. Still, depending on the acre, that could
be well over a hundred bushels of corn. That'd make enough
hominy and cornbread to last me several days!
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
> What you do is figure out how to do the ethically right thing, then do
> it and keep your mouth shut about it.

That may sound good, but it is both impossible and violates all the
characteristics of human society.

How would anyone "figure out" how to do the ethically "right" thing
except by weighing philosophical ideas about what is right? And how
to do so, unless one is a total hermit, except by learning from
others what they feel is right behavior toward them and others? In
any social species, members learn what is right action toward others by
first learning what other beings need and want, then determining how
one's own actions relate to that. A purely solipsistic morality is both
uninformed, and usually immoral. Any morality or ethics is always
based on the ethical opinion one has learned, either from one source,
or from many sources.

You don't worry if your one little
> action, which obviously has only symbolic value when there are over 6
> billion other people in the world, is going to save the world or not.
> If it's the right thing to do, you just do it, and content yourself with
> the knowledge you're doing the right thing.

But if one believes it really is the right thing, should they not
try to convince others? Why ignore wrong things being done to others
all around you? Do we not have an obligation to try to prevent genuine
wrong done to others? Every social ethical system holds that
we have _some_ obligation toward others.

<snip>

Rat

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:08:17 GMT, "Marvin"
> wrote:
>
> >Where I live, grass feeding requires tons of hay during
winter
> >months at least. There may be places where cattle can
survive
> >by grazing the range year around, but I'm not familiar with
> >them. I've never done a count, but I've mowed enough hay
to
> >know that ground nesting birds, rabbits, and reptiles are
> >sometimes killed in the process.
>
> If you compare what it takes to produce hay and what it
> takes to produce soy beans, which do you think would
> involve the deaths of more animals? How about if you
> compare what it takes to produce hay and what it takes
> to produce rice?
>
I tried to check your links to see whether there was
information about ranking the various crops' potential for
animal deaths, but none of them would work. The net may just
be overloaded right now. My guess is that these things would
differ according to where they are more than according to
which crop is being grown, but I'd find it of minor interest
to learn about rankings and the methods used to establish them
if any such thing exists.
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What you do is figure out how to do the ethically right thing, then do
>> it and keep your mouth shut about it.
>
>
> That may sound good, but it is both impossible and violates all the
> characteristics of human society.

Ipse dixit.

You *would* think it violates them, but you are a
narcissistic nag who has psychological flaw. You are
unable to resist a disgusting tendency to proclaim your
virtue, even though your criteria for virtue are
irrelevant to it.

>
> How would anyone "figure out" how to do the ethically "right" thing
> except by weighing philosophical ideas about what is right? And how
> to do so, unless one is a total hermit, except by learning from
> others what they feel is right behavior toward them and others? In
> any social species, members learn what is right action toward others by
> first learning what other beings need and want, then determining how
> one's own actions relate to that. A purely solipsistic morality is both
> uninformed, and usually immoral. Any morality or ethics is always
> based on the ethical opinion one has learned, either from one source,
> or from many sources.
>
>> You don't worry if your one little
>> action, which obviously has only symbolic value when there are over 6
>> billion other people in the world, is going to save the world or not.
>> If it's the right thing to do, you just do it, and content yourself
>> with the knowledge you're doing the right thing.
>
>
> But if one believes it really is the right thing, should they not
> try to convince others?

No.

> Why ignore wrong things being done to others
> all around you?

First, we're not necessarily talking about wrong things
being "done to" others. Second, a sensible and humble
person - that rules *you* out on both counts - should
think, first and foremost, that she might be wrong.
Third, in your particular case, your moral thinking has
been shown to be entirely in error.

> Do we not have an obligation to try to prevent genuine
> wrong done to others?

So - you *support* the war in Iraq, after all. Thank you.

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Russ Thompson of
Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
said:

>> Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
>> meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals
>on
>> grass.
>
>*** Well you are right that with the current economic and regulatory
>situation in the USA it would not be possible. If you look at it from an
>acres needed point of view it could be done no problem. We can raise a grass
>finished steer on slightly less than 3 acres. That includes the 1/3 acre of
>hay that will have to be harvested for the steer for winter feeding. A grain
>finished steer would require 4 acres. Basicly the saem 3 grazing acres plus
>another acre of grain. However with current USDA rugulations and subsidies
>it can't happen.
>
Ah! At last someone whom I might get some proper answers from!
(I assume that you're posting from misc.rural, so you should see this
despite my removal of all other groups than that, and afv, where I
post from).

How about on a global basis? Do you think it would be sustainably
possible, on a global basis, to feed all with meat from grass fed
animals, and game meat (Do keep in mind that we'll need some
vegetables too)?

I'd like to hear what you, as a farmer, think of this. I don't expect
you to be an expert on farming all over the world, but I'd be
interested in hearing your perspective on this.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably
overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain)

Allyb wrote:

<snip>

> You know, I don't even know a single hard core vegan. If that's what
> they're like Rick, I hope I never do.

<snip>
That's not what they're (necessarily) like. I am a vegan, and have
been a vegetarian for 20 years, and I have known a number of vegans.
They're people, like other people, and vary tremendously, but most
are gentle people who try not to harm others and are concerned about
their impact on the world. Those who oppose killing animals for
animal rights reasons are often led into rick's trap, but, make no
mistake, it IS a trap. If one believes animals have moral
standing which makes it unethical to kill them for food (just like
people) the argument over which foods kill _more_ is a false one.
One cannot support a system which deliberately breeds, raises, and
slaughters animals because it _might_ (no one has proof it does)
kill fewer. It is the deliberate killing which is unethical. The
deliberate killing of animals in veggie production is also wrong,
but it is not a necessary and integral part of raising veggies.
Vegans suggest we eliminate deliberate killing, and concentrate on
reforming methods of veggie production to reduce any genuine
collateral deaths to the minimum.

As rick and jon both point out, the individual can try to reduce
the number of deaths involved in his personal choices. However,
this is as possible with a vegan or vegetarian diet as with an
omnivorous one, and, indeed, -- as all the non-vegans here will
reluctantly admit if pressed -- a vegan diet choosing sources
carefully will result in a lower collateral death toll.

So, whether one chooses on the basis of utilitarian or deontological
ethics, a vegan diet can be more ethical, and if carefully followed,
must be.

Rat
<snip>

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Allyb of OWDS Inc. said:

>Thanks MEow, I'm new to this newsgroup thing, and he got my goat.

I imagined. I recommend learning about killfiles, if you don't know
about them already. They're your friends.

>I did
>notice that he didn't provide any data about the grass fed cattle. I was
>not under the impression that most commercially raised cattle were raised on
>grass, but were fed agriculturally produced vegetable matter due to limited
>grazing space.
>
I saw that in some of your other posts, and I didn't mean to insinuate
otherwise. That's my impression too.

In any case, I hope you do stick around, and won't let the trolls
scare you away. If you ask something about food, you'll find people
coming to your help :0) Most of the regulars just don't bother with
that kind of discussion, that's all.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably
overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain)

> Would it really take an acre's worth of grain to "finish"?
> I've never raised cattle, but I'm aware they can put away
> quite a lot of feed. Still, depending on the acre, that could
> be well over a hundred bushels of corn. That'd make enough
> hominy and cornbread to last me several days!

*** I am only talking about what it would take on our farm with our yeilds.
Corn is the grain that is used to finish steers and our average corn yeilds
are 74bu/acre. We have some bottom fields that produce more and some ridge
fields that produce less.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, WI USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Allyb wrote:
>
> > Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand
for
> > meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough
animals on
> > grass.
>
> That is NOT a flaw. We aren't talking about satisfying
> the entire demand for meat and dairy; we're talking
> about the action(s) YOU undertake for some claimed
> ethical reason.
>
> You believe or believed that by not consuming any
> animal products, you were not causing *any* animal
> suffering.

snip

I don't think it's appropriate for you to tell me what I believe, it's bad
enough that you assume you know. And I "was" talking about satisfying the
entire demand for meat and dairy, not my choices or beliefs. I was talking
about 1+1=2, not philosophy. Stop reading so much into a simple question
statement.

Allyb wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Allyb wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand
>
> for
>
>>>meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough
>
> animals on
>
>>>grass.
>>
>>That is NOT a flaw. We aren't talking about satisfying
>>the entire demand for meat and dairy; we're talking
>>about the action(s) YOU undertake for some claimed
>>ethical reason.
>>
>>You believe or believed that by not consuming any
>>animal products, you were not causing *any* animal
>>suffering.
>
>
> snip
>
> I don't think it's appropriate for you to tell me what I believe, it's bad
> enough that you assume you know.

You have some kind of inclination towards so-called
"ethical" vegetarianism. Based on that, I know what
you believe.

> And I "was" talking about satisfying the
> entire demand for meat and dairy, not my choices or beliefs.

I don't CARE if you were, or thought you were, talking
about the entire demand. It's irrelevant. You can
only *practically* talk about YOUR demand, in the
context of your leanings towards so-called "ethical"
vegetarianism.

> I was talking
> about 1+1=2, not philosophy. Stop reading so much into a simple question
> statement.

Implicitly, you are talking about philosophy. At some
point, you may even realize it.

"Purple" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>. ..
> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
> >
> > >Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand
for
> > >meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough
animals on
> > >grass.
> >
> > That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are aware
of.
> > What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
> > grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal deaths
> > than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more deaths
> > than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow milk...
> > are you unable to understand why?)
> > But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that this
> > country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is
what
> > "ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other things
> > that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:
>
> [snip extensive list of products]
>
> There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you list.
================
LOL And you really think they are made without the death and suffering of
animals? What a hoot!

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Allyb of OWDS Inc. said:
>
> >You know, I don't even know a single hard core vegan. If that's what
> >they're like Rick, I hope I never do.
> >
> Rich is a known troll. He doesn't do anything but repeating his point
> about collateral deaths, as if we didn't know about them.
========================
I suggest you learn the meaning of the term. Obviously you don't know it
now.


>
> He also changed the subject when you asked him about the possibility
> of enough grass fed cows (of the ones who go outdoor all year, or that
> will also cause some collateral deaths, when he claims that grass fed
> beef only causes the death of the cow, itself) to feed all of
> USAmerica.
=======================
Nope. The problem is it still doesn't have to feed everyone. It's the
vegan sanctimonious loons that claim they want an ethical diet. Most sane
people are quite happy with their meals now.


>
> It's not very good as an alternative, if it's not something which
> sustainably can feed all people, now is it?
==================
Again, it doesn't have to, now does it? that's just another typical vegan
strawman because you cannot refute the facts I state.

No, it means that it's
> something which we can't all switch to.
=================
Again, we 'all' don't have to. there is far more than enough for the
marginal loons that think they are doing some 'good' now with just a diet.


So, he can't defend the
> alternative he sets up as a better way than veganism, and if you ask
> him to he'll just continue to go on about collateral deaths. Much
> easier for him than having to defend his idea of meat from grass fed
> cattle.
====================
I don't have to have an alternative, fool. I'm not the hypocritical loon
claiming one thing and living a far different way.

>
> My advice is to not waste time on the trolls, and ask what you came
> here to ask: there's plenty of people in here who are not like them at
> all.
=================
translation, 'I can't refute what he says, nor can I defend my deit, so I'll
ignore that which upsets my delusions'. '
>
> However, it's all up to you. I'm just adding my opinion here, as I'm
> not normally spending time on them.
> --
> Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
> ICQ# 251532856
> Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
> "True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably
> overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain)

"Allyb" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks MEow, I'm new to this newsgroup thing, and he got my goat. I did
> notice that he didn't provide any data about the grass fed cattle. I was
> not under the impression that most commercially raised cattle were raised
on
> grass, but were fed agriculturally produced vegetable matter due to
limited
> grazing space.
====================
LOL That's not they way you posted it.




>
> "MEow" > wrote in message
> ...
> > While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Allyb of OWDS Inc. said:
> >
> > >You know, I don't even know a single hard core vegan. If that's what
> > >they're like Rick, I hope I never do.
> > >
> > Rich is a known troll. He doesn't do anything but repeating his point
> > about collateral deaths, as if we didn't know about them.
> >
> > He also changed the subject when you asked him about the possibility
> > of enough grass fed cows (of the ones who go outdoor all year, or that
> > will also cause some collateral deaths, when he claims that grass fed
> > beef only causes the death of the cow, itself) to feed all of
> > USAmerica.
> >
> > It's not very good as an alternative, if it's not something which
> > sustainably can feed all people, now is it? No, it means that it's
> > something which we can't all switch to. So, he can't defend the
> > alternative he sets up as a better way than veganism, and if you ask
> > him to he'll just continue to go on about collateral deaths. Much
> > easier for him than having to defend his idea of meat from grass fed
> > cattle.
> >
> > My advice is to not waste time on the trolls, and ask what you came
> > here to ask: there's plenty of people in here who are not like them at
> > all.
> >
> > However, it's all up to you. I'm just adding my opinion here, as I'm
> > not normally spending time on them.
> > --
> > Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
> > ICQ# 251532856
> > Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
> > "True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably
> > overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain)
>
>